|
To view or download the
PDF version of this document, click here
(requires free Adobe Acrobat Reader).
Human Cloning Legislation in Congress:
Misconceptions and Realities
Updated September 13, 2005
For further information, contact the Federal Legislation
Department at the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) at
Legfederal@aol.com or 202-626-8820,
and visit the Human Embryo page on the NRLC website at
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/index.html.
Introduction
Multiple bills dealing with human cloning are currently before the Congress.
The public deserves to know what the fundamental policy argument is really
about – but the biotechnology industry lobby and its allies are working
overtime to generate smokescreens of evasions and euphemisms. Regrettably,
some journalists – whether out of sympathy for one side of the debate,
ignorance of the mechanics of human cloning, gullibility, or some
combination of these factors – have disseminated reports that badly
misrepresent the differences between the competing human cloning bills in
Congress. In some cases, these reports go beyond murkiness and distortion
into the realm of the absurd – for example, stories that use terms such as
“egg” or “cells” to refer to a member of the species Homo sapiens (46
chromosomes) who has developed for five days, or even for two weeks.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify what the argument is really about.
In reality, neither side’s cloning bill would restrict research on human ova
(“eggs”), and both sides’ bills would allow the use of cloning methods to
produce human DNA, cells, or tissues. Moreover, neither side’s cloning bill
restricts research using stem cells taken from human embryos created through
in vitro fertilization – whether it involves embryonic stem cell lines that
were established before August 9, 2001 (which may be eligible for federal
funding), or from embryos newly obtained from IVF clinics. The fundamental
difference is this: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) and the
Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357) would ban the creation of human embryos by
cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT), while the competing bills
proposed by Senators Hatch (S. 876) and Feinstein (S. 1520) and by
Congresswoman Bono (H.R. 1822) would allow human embryos to be created by
cloning and then killed for biomedical research (including but not limited
to “stem cell research.”)
Contents of this Factsheet
Past Developments
in Congress
President Bush’s
Position and Statements
The Situation in the U.S. Senate
Misconception: Enacting a ban on all human
cloning will “make criminals out of scientists.”
Misconception: The
Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human
“cells.”
Misconception: So-called “therapeutic
cloning” does not involve creating human embryos.
Misconception: The Hatch bill (S. 876)
would allow research only on “unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.”
Misconception: The Hatch and Feinstein
bills (S. 876, H.R. 1520) contain a “restriction” or “safeguard” that allows
research only on “unfertilized” human eggs.
Misconception: The Hatch and Feinstein (S.
876, H.R. 1520) bills would “ban human cloning” or “ban the cloning of human
beings.”
Misconception: Clones, even if born, would
not really be “human beings.”
Misconception: The Hatch and Feinstein
bills would enact a “compromise” that would accomplish what almost everyone
agrees on – banning “reproductive cloning.”
Misconception: Legislation to allow
“therapeutic cloning” also contains a “14-day rule” that will ensure that no
woman will become pregnant with a cloned human embryo.
Misconception: Legislation tht would
allow “therapeutic cloning” would not permit the growing of human fetuses
for the harvesting of tissues or organs (“fetus farming”).
Misconception: Even when the law allows
it, those who favor cloning for research would never want to allow human
clones to develop past the two-week stage.
Misconception: Opposition to the cloning
of human embryos is limited to anti-abortion lawmakers, and even some of
them support “therapeutic cloning,” such as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Misconception: Those who oppose the
creation of human embryos by cloning are against any form of stem cell
research.
Misconception: Those who oppose the
creation of human embryos by cloning are anti-science, and they are callous
ideologues who apparently care little about the suffering of those afflicted
with serious diseases.
Misconception: The biotechnology industry
wants to create human embryos by cloning only to study their stem cells.
Misconception: The Hatch-Feinstein-Bono
legislation would authorize only research on “surplus” human embryos who
would otherwise be discarded.
Past Developments in
Congress
On February 27, 2003, the House of Representatives passed, 241-155, the
Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534), sponsored by Congressmen Dave
Weldon (R-Fl.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mi.). (The House had earlier passed this
legislation in 2001.) This bill, backed by President Bush, would ban the
creation of human embryos by cloning. The House decisively rejected
(231-174) a competing proposal (“substitute amendment”) proposed by
Congressmen Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) that would have allowed and encouraged the
creation of human embryos by cloning, while attempting to ban the use of any
such cloned embryo to “initiate a pregnancy.” (Greenwood has since left
Congress and is now president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.)
NRLC strongly opposed the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute, for reasons
explained in a February 21, 2003, letter to House members, posted here:
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/lettertocongressgreenwood022103.html
The Senate never acted on the Weldon-Stupak bill or its Senate companion
bill, which was sponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-Ks.) and Mary
Landrieu (D-La.).
In the new 109th Congress, the policy supported by President Bush is again
embodied in the Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658), which currently has 33
sponsors and cosponsors, and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357), which
currently has 122 sponsors and cosponsors. The language of the
Brownback-Landrieu bill is nearly the same as the Weldon-Stupak bill, in
that both ban the creation of and trafficking in cloned human embryos. But
the House bill also bans importation of “any product derived from” cloned
human embryos, while the Senate bill does not1.
Both the House and Senate bills provide for up to 10 years in prison or
fines of up to $1 million for violations.
Competing legislation to allow and encourage the cloning of human embryos
for research has been introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne
Feinstein (D-Ca.), and others as S. 876, and by Congresswoman Mary Bono
(R-Ca.) as H.R. 1822. The thrust of the Hatch-Feinstein-Bono legislation is
the same as that of the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute that the House rejected
in 2001 and 2003, although there are some fine points of distinction, some
of which are discussed below.
In addition, on July 27, 2005, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) introduced
S. 1520, which is a shorter version of the original Hatch-Feinstein bill (S.
876). The most important difference between the two versions is that S. 1520
does not contain S. 1520's prohibition against allowing human clones
to develop past the 14-day point. S. 1520 allows the use of cloning to
create human embryos in any numbers, and prohibits only the implantation of
such a human clone in a uterus “or the functional equivalent of a uterus” –-
language that seems designed to leave the door open to future “fetus
farming” practices, as discussed below.
When S. 876 was introduced, on April 21, 2005, Sen. Feinstein issued a press
release (http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-stemcell.htm),
emphasizing a list of so-called “ethical standards” contained in the bill.
Critics argued that these “ethical standards” were gravely flawed (see
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=685&wit_id=1821).
When Feinstein introduced the revised bill, S. 1520, on July 27, 2005, all
of these “ethical standards” had been removed. The dropped requirements
related to informed consent, financial incentives, and a physical separation
between cloning labs and in vitro fertilization labs.
President
Bush’s Position and Statements
President Bush has repeatedly called on Congress to ban all human cloning
(i.e., to ban the cloning of human embryos). In remarks on January 22, 2003,
the President said, “I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We
must not create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research material
to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.” In his January 28, 2003,
State of the Union speech, the President said, “Because no human life should
be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high
standard for humanity, and pass a law against all human cloning.”
The President reiterated his position in his State of the Union address on
February 2, 2005: “I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos
are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human
life is never bought or sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead
the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always
ethical.”
In a speech on human cloning on April 10, 2002, President Bush warned that
unless such legislation is enacted, human “embryo farms” will be established
in the United States. (See
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html)
On February 26, 2003, the White House issued an official “Statement of
Administration Policy, which reads in part, “The Administration
unequivocally is opposed to the cloning of human beings either for
reproduction or for research. . . . The Administration is strongly opposed
to any legislation that would prohibit human cloning for reproductive
purposes but permit the creation of cloned embryos or development of human
embryo farms for research, which would require the destruction of nascent
human life.”
(www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/HR534HumanCloningProhibitionActSAP.pdf)
In 2003, following the House’s rejection of the Greenwood Substitute and its
approval of the Weldon-Stupak bill, the President said in a written
statement, “Like most Americans, I believe human cloning is deeply
troubling, and I strongly support efforts by Congress to ban all human
cloning. We must advance the promise and cause of medical science, including
through ethical stem cell research, yet we must do so in ways that respect
human dignity and help build a culture of life. I urge the Senate to act
quickly on legislation banning all human cloning.”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030227-20.html)
On May 20, 2005, in response to a report that South Korean researchers had
created clones of 11 sick persons, killed the cloned embryos, and started
stem cell lines, President Bush said, “I am very concerned about cloning. I
worry about a world in which cloning becomes acceptable.”
The Situation in the
U.S. Senate
The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) has been referred to the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which is chaired
by Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wy.), who is a cosponsor of that bill. The Hatch
bill (S. 876) has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is
chaired by Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who is a cosponsor of that bill.
However, the Senate could consider either bill, or both, without any action
by either committee.
The key differences between the various bills are discussed below. In
many recent news media reports on human cloning issues, the differences have
been mischaracterized, and the specific activities that each bill would
allow and prohibit have been widely misunderstood.
Misconceptions and Realities
Regarding Human Cloning Legislation in Congress
MISCONCEPTION: Enacting a ban on
all human cloning will “make criminals out of scientists.”
REALITY: Bans on all forms of human cloning
do not “make criminals out of” responsible scientists, because when
democratically elected legislative bodies define human cloning as an
unacceptable form of human experimentation, responsible scientists obey the
law.
Issues regarding the creation and exploitation of members of the species
Homo sapiens are too important to be left only to scientists. We all have a
stake in these issues. Scientists certainly have an important voice in
policy debates on these matters, but history demonstrates the dangers of
allowing those who wish to pursue research in a certain area to dictate the
standards for acceptable human experimentation.
Laws banning all forms of human cloning are already in effect in over 30
nations, including Germany, France, Norway, Canada, Australia, and
Switzerland.
In March 2005, the General Assembly of the United Nations overwhelmingly
urged member states to adopt such bans on all forms of human cloning. By a
vote of 84-34, the General Assembly called on member states to adopt laws to
“prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with
human dignity and the protection of human life.” (See:
http://www.un.org/law/cloning/#2004)
It should also be noted that the Hatch bill (S. 876) and the Feinstein bill
(S. 1520) contain the same level of criminal penalties as the
Brownback-Landrieu bill – the difference is in which activities by
scientists are covered by those penalties.
MISCONCEPTION: The
Brownback-Landrieu/Weldon-Stupak legislation prohibits cloning of human
“cells.”
REALITY: Pro-life opponents of human cloning
do not object to research on human “cells,” despite many press reports that
grossly distort the debate by framing it that way.
To cite just one example among many, a news report in The Chronicle of
Higher Education (“House Votes to Ban Cloning Research – Again,” by
Jeffrey Brainard, February 28, 2003) began, “After a heated debate over
ethics and science, the U.S. House of Representatives voted yet again on
Thursday to criminalize any effort to create cloned cells, even for medical
research.” The story went on to explain that the Weldon-Stupak bill provides
“a prison term of up to 10 years for anyone attempting to clone a human
cell.” The terminology “cloning human cells” has also been adopted by the
Boston Globe, among others.
In truth, however, as a single reading of the bill would reveal, the
Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357)
explicitly allow “the use of nuclear transfer or other cloning
techniques to produce molecules, DNA, cells other than human embryos,
tissues, organs, plants, or animals other than humans.” [See Sec. 2 of the
bill, at (d) in H.R. 1357 and at (e) in S. 658].
Thus, any current or future methods used to “clone” new skin, for example,
or to “clone” DNA, would be perfectly legal under the Brownback-Landrieu
bill. Moreover, any cloning method (explicitly including “nuclear
transfer”) to produce stem cells without first producing and killing
a human embryo -- as some researchers now say that they expect to learn how
to do -- is explicitly permitted by this language.
In addition, the Brownback-Landrieu and Weldon-Stupak bills place no
restrictions on research on human ova (“eggs”), properly so called.
Moreover, the Weldon-Stupak and Brownback-Landrieu bills do not speak to the
separate issue of the use of frozen human embryos, created through in vitro
fertilization, for medical research on stem cells or for any other research
purposes. The restrictions of the Weldon-Stupak bill apply only to:
(1) the use of the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) cloning technique,
to produce (2) a human embryo.
This point has been acknowledged even by a leading congressional supporter
of cloning embryos for research, then-Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.), who
said on the House floor, while speaking against the Weldon-Stupak bill, “The
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) did not bring a bill to the floor to ban
embryonic stem cell research.” (July 31, 2001)
In short, the Brownback/Weldon legislation and the Hatch-Feinstein
legislation are alike in that they would both permit cloning
involving merely eggs, cells, or tissues, but they differ on one profound
issue: The Hatch and Feinstein bills would allow the use of the somatic
cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) process to create human embryos, and the
Brownback/Weldon legislation would forbid the use of SCNT to create human
embryos.
Verbiage by supporters of “research cloning” about “eggs” and “cells” is
intended to conceal what the argument is really about: whether it should be
permitted to create human embryos by cloning so they can be used in
biomedical research that will kill them.
MISCONCEPTION: So-called “therapeutic cloning”
does not involve creating human embryos.
REALITY: That SCNT using human genetic
material will create a developing embryo of the species Homo sapiens is
something that everyone on all sides agreed on until sometime in 2001, when
some pro-cloning forces decided to try to obscure this fact for political
purposes. Among those who clearly affirmed that SCNT will create human
embryos were the bioethics panels of both Presidents Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush, the human embryo research panel at NIH, and the chief cloning
researchers at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts. Some samples of
such statements, which pre-date the current disinformation campaign, are
posted here:
www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/factsheetembryo.html.
For example: A group of scientists, ethicists, and biotechnology executives
advocating so-called “therapeutic cloning” and use of human embryos for
research – Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, Lee Silver of
Princeton University, Ronald Green of Dartmouth University, and Michael
West, Robert Lanza, and Jose Cibelli of Advanced Cell Technology -- wrote in
the December 27, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association, “CRNT [cell replacement through nuclear transfer, another
term for “therapeutic cloning”] requires the deliberate creation and
disaggregation of a human embryo.” They also wrote, “ . . . because
therapeutic cloning requires the creation and disaggregation ex utero of
blastocyst stage embryos, this technique raises complex ethical questions.”
In its 2002 report on human cloning, the President’s Council on Bioethics,
although divided on policy recommendations, provided without dissent some
recommendations regarding the use of honest terminology in this crucial
public policy debate, including acknowledging that successful SCNT will
create human embryos. The Council said, “The product of ‘SCNT’ is not
only an embryo; it is also a clone, genetically virtually identical to the
individual that was the source of the transferred nucleus, hence an
embryonic clone of the donor.”
The Council recommended use of the terms “cloning for biomedical research”
and “cloning to produce children” to distinguish between two of the purposes
for which human embryos might be cloned. (“Cloning for research” and
“cloning for birth” convey pretty much the same thing.) The Council’s
discussion on accurate and neutral terminology is here:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/cloningreport/terminology.html
See also the declaration of cell biologist Dr. Stuart A. Newman, presented
in the Superior Court of the State of California, here:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/TerminologyNewmanDeclaration.pdf
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch bill (S. 876) would
allow research only on “unfertilized eggs up to 14 days.” Example:
A report in www.the-scientist.com [Feb. 7, 2003] on introduction of the
Hatch bill said that the measure “prohibits any research on an egg cell
after 14 days, when cell differentiation begins.”
REALITY: As can be confirmed by reference to
any biology text or even any decent dictionary, a human ovum or “egg” is, by
definition, a single cell. Moreover, it is a very unusual cell – a gamete
cell, which means it has only 23 active chromosomes. Sex has not yet been
determined.
However, once an egg contains a complete nucleus from any species that is
activated and developing – whether that has occurred by sexual fertilization
or by asexual somatic cell nuclear transfer – then one has a developing
embryo of that species (sheep, cow, Homo sapiens, etc.).
There is no such thing in biology or in any dictionary as a human “egg”
or “egg cell” that has 46 chromosomes, has been determined to be either male
or female, and is five days old (consisting of hundreds of cells) or 14 days
old (consisting of thousands of cells). Those who, knowing better, refer to
a five-day-old or a two-week-old human embryo (whether male or female) as an
“egg” deceive the public regarding what the policy argument is really about,
and we submit that responsible journalists should not be parties to that
deception.
(The actual text of the Hatch-Feinstein legislation coins the term
“unfertilized blastocyst.” But “blastocyst” is simply a technical term for
an embryo at an early stage of development.)
Some supporters of human cloning are more intellectually honest than others.
At a press conference on Capitol Hill on February 26, 2003, pro-cloning
Reps. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) and Peter Deutsch (D-Fl.) promoted their
substitute amendment to allow and encourage cloning for biomedical research.
Because the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) (cloning) does
not involve “fertilization” by sperm, what it produces is “an egg, not an
embryo,” Congressman Deutsch emphatically told assembled reporters. But
minutes later, at the same press conference, this claim was contradicted by
a prominent researcher who had come to voice support for the
Greenwood-Deutsch legislation -- Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins
University, one of the discoverers of human embryonic stem cells. In
response to a direct question as to what the SCNT process creates, Dr.
Gearhart said, “I contend it is an embryo.” When the questioner pointed
out that an “egg” is by definition a single cell with only 23 active
chromosomes, Dr. Gearhart agreed, saying, “I don't think anyone is saying
that it is just an egg.” (Yet, that is precisely what Mr. Deutsch had
told the reporters a few minutes earlier.)
A letter in which Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) explores these and other
statements by Dr. Gearhart in more detail is here:
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Gearhartsaysitsnotanegg.pdf
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch and Feinstein bills
(S. 876, S. 1520) contain a “restriction” or “safeguard” that allows
research only on “unfertilized” human eggs.
REALITY: This is just another word trick
aimed at the gullible. Of course human embryos produced by cloning will be
“unfertilized,” because that is what cloning is: asexual reproduction – no
sperm. Every cloned mammal in the world has been
“unfertilized” from the one-celled embryo stage, and every one still will be
“unfertilized” on the day he or she dies. If a human embryo created by
cloning instead of fertilization is implanted in a womb, is born, and lives
to be 50, she will still be “unfertilized.”
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch and Feinstein bills
would “ban human cloning” or “ban the cloning of human beings.”
REALITY: The Hatch and Feinstein bills do
not ban human cloning. They ban transferring a cloned human embryo “into a
uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus” (the “functional
equivalent” term is not defined), an act to which criminal penalties are
attached. (The Hatch bill, S. 876, also attempts to impose a ban against
allowing a cloned human embryo to develop past 14 days, but that provision
is not found in the Feinstein bill, S. 1520.)
In other words, these bills ban not “human cloning,” but the survival of
human clones, which is a very different thing.
Any bill that permits cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer) with human
DNA does not “ban human cloning,” because such a bill allows the creation of
embryos of the species Homo sapiens by cloning, and an embryo of the species
Homo sapiens is human – just as the cloned embryo that was later born as
Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, was always a member of the species
Ovis aries.
Thus, when a news outlet reports that the Hatch or Feinstein bill “bans
human cloning” or “bans the cloning of human beings,” that newspaper or
broadcast news outlet is saying, in its own voice, that cloned embryos of
the species Homo sapiens are not “human.” We believe that this position is
clearly erroneous biologically. Moreover, the adoption of such terminology
is clearly inconsistent with journalistic objectivity or neutrality on the
core issues being debated.
Certainly, some people do insist that these cloned embryos should not be
treated as members of the human family – but that is the core of the policy
argument, and one would hope that responsible journalists would avoid taking
sides on the issue by declaring cloned human embryos to be something other
than “human” or “human beings.”
It appears that President Bush is among those who recognize cloned human
embryos as human beings: In his January 22, 2003 statement, the President
said, “I also urge the Congress to ban all human cloning. We must not
create life to destroy life. Human beings are not research
material to be used in a cruel and reckless experiment.” [emphasis added]
Moreover, on February 26, 2003, the White House issued an official
“Statement of Administration Policy,” which said in part, “The
Administration unequivocally is opposed to the cloning of human beings
either for reproduction or for research.” [italics added for emphasis] (www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/HR534HumanCloningProhibitionActSAP.pdf)
MISCONCEPTION: Clones, even if born, would not
really be “human beings.”
REALITY: The National Right to Life
Committee believes that if a cloned human being were born, she should have
the same status as other born humans -- but Senator Hatch and some others
may not agree. In a press release dated February 5, 2002, Senator Hatch
said, “No doubt somewhere, some -- such as the Raelians -- are trying to
make a name for themselves and are busy trying to apply the techniques that
gave us Dolly the Sheep to human beings. Frankly, I am not sure that
human being would even be the correct term for such an individual heretofore
unknown in nature.”
Senator Hatch is not the only member of Congress who has suggested that even
born clones might be regarded as something other than “human.” During the
February 27, 2003 House debate on the cloning issue, an opponent of the
Weldon-Stupak bill, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (D-Ca.), said, “Children are
created by the fertilization of an egg cell, by sperm, not by chemical
stimulation.” Does this mean that if a cloned human embryo is brought to
birth, Congresswoman Eshoo will consider that newborn to be something other
than a “child”? Or was Congresswoman Eshoo only suggesting that production
of a “child” by cloning is impossible – but on what basis would she think
that, and why then would she cosponsor a bill (the Greenwood-Deutsch
Substitute) to make it a crime to seek to “initiate a pregnancy” with a
cloned human embryo?
As Slate.com columnist William Saletan has commented (“Killing Eve:
How senators justify cloning – and infanticide,” December 31, 2002,
http://slate.msn.com/id/2076199/),
“The first cloned baby – Eve or whoever comes after her – won’t be
fertilized. If fertilization is a prerequisite to humanity, as Hatch and
Feinstein suggest, that baby will never be human. You can press the pillow
over her face and walk away.”
Here are additional discussions of the implications of the argument that
human status depends on being the product of sexual fertilization: “Are
Human Clones Really Human?,”
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/arecloneshuman.html, and,
“The Amazing Vanishing Embryo Trick,” by Douglas Johnson,
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-johnson071701.shtml
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch and Feinstein bills
would enact a “compromise” that would accomplish what almost everyone agrees
on – banning “reproductive cloning.”
REALITY: The Hatch and Feinstein bills are
not a partial solution or a middle ground. Rather, they are a step in the
wrong direction. The Hatch and Feinstein legislation would give a green
light to the establishment of human embryo farms. Far from representing
“common ground,” these bills would enact a policy disfavored by most
Americans.
The Polling Company
nationwide poll of adults, April 21-24, 2005
(two alternative questions, each asked to separate 500-adult sample, margins
of error +/-4.5%).
"Which of these statements
comes closest to your view on human cloning?"
“All human cloning should be allowed.” 8%
“Cloning that creates and then destroys human embryos for stem cell research
should be allowed, but cloning human embryos which would result in the birth
of children should be banned.” 28%
“All human cloning should be banned.” 55%.
“Cloning human embryos which would result in the birth of children should be
allowed, but cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which
would destroy them should be banned.” 4%
“Which of these statements comes closest to your view?”
[options rotated.] [N= 500, margin of error +/- 4.5%]
“Person 1. Cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which
would destroy them should be allowed and only cloning for reproduction
should be banned.
“Person 2: All human cloning should be banned.
“And would you say you strongly or somewhat support that statement?”
41% SUPPORT STATEMENT 1 (NET)
16% STRONGLY SUPPORT STATEMENT 1
25% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT STATEMENT 1
54% SUPPORT STATEMENT 2 (NET)
8% SOMEWHAT SUPPORT STATEMENT 2
46% STRONGLY SUPPORT STATEMENT 2
Wilson Research Strategies, Inc.
1,000 national adults, August 16-18, 2004, margin of error 3.1%:
“Which of the following comes closest to your view?”
1. “Cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research which would kill
them should be allowed and only cloning for reproduction should be banned”:
24%
2. “All human cloning should be banned”: 69%
3. Don't know / refused: 7%
International Communications Research
1,001 adults, August 13-17, 2004, margin of error 3%
“Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to
create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?”
Yes: 13.3%
No: 79.8%
Don’t know: 6.1%
Refused: 0.7%
Gallup Poll
May, 2002
A Gallup poll in May 2002 found that 61% of the American
people opposed “cloning of human embryos for use in medical research” (34%
approved), which is precisely what the Hatch and Feinstein bills are crafted
to allow and indeed encourage. In other polls, substantially higher numbers
are opposed when it is explained that the human embryos will be destroyed in
the research.
The “clone and kill” approach already has been decisively rejected by the
House of Representatives (on July 31, 2001 and February 27, 2003), and is
strongly opposed by the Bush Administration. The Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Tommy Thompson, in 2002 sent a letter to Senator Brownback
warning that such a bill would face a presidential veto. Thompson wrote, “.
. . the President does not believe that ‘reproductive’ and ‘research’
cloning should be treated differently, given that they both require the
creation, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos . . . the
Administration could not support any measure that purported to ban
‘reproductive’ cloning while authorizing ‘research’ cloning, and I would
recommend to the President that he veto such a bill.” (www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/ThompsontoBrownback.pdf)
Thus, the Hatch-Feinstein approach will not be enacted as federal law.
But that does not bother many of its backers, such as the biotechnology
industry lobby, because the primary purpose of the Hatch and Feinstein bills
is to impede enactment of the real ban on human cloning by providing
political cover for lawmakers who favor allowing the creation of human
embryos for research.
Asked about NRLC’s charge that the Hatch bill is intended merely as a
“roadblock” to prevent enactment of a ban on human cloning, Michael
Manganiello, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical
Research, “acknowledged as much,” according to the Chicago Tribune
(“Advances make ban on human cloning a hot issue in Congress,” February 14,
2003). “If it is a roadblock, so be it,” Manganiello told the Tribune.
The Hatch-Feinstein bills would give federal law enforcement agencies
responsibility for trying to enforce a ban on implanting a cloned embryo in
a womb – an approach that the Justice Department in 2002 rejected as
unworkable. The Department explained that once large numbers of cloned human
embryos are created, there is no practical way to prevent some of them from
being implanted in wombs, and once this occurs enforcement of the law would
create “extremely serious legal, moral, and practical issues.” The testimony
is here:
www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf.
MISCONCEPTION: Legislation to allow
“therapeutic cloning” also contains a “14-day rule” that will ensure that no
woman will become pregnant with a cloned human embryo.
REALITY: As explained above, the Department
of Justice testified in 2002 that this approach is, as a practical matter,
unenforceable, because it would impose on federal agencies the impossible
task of monitoring countless cloned human embryos outwardly
indistinguishable from human embryos created through in vitro fertilization.
IVF-created embryos are transferred into women’s bodies in large numbers
through exactly the same procedures that would be used with cloned embryos.
The testimony is here:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Justice_Dept_on_cloning.pdf
It is noteworthy, however, that a woman who already carries an unborn cloned
human in utero could herself be threatened with the penalty provided under
the bill’s 14-day rule, a $250,000 fine, perhaps in an attempt to compel her
to procure an abortion. Once the cloned human embryo has implanted in her
womb (generally around the sixth day of development), she would have about
one week to consider abortion or face the charge that she has “maintained”
the embryo “after more than 14 days from its first cell division.”
It should also be noted that the most recent iteration of the clone-and-kill
approach, introduced by Senator Feinstein as S. 1520 on July 27, 2005 (with
Sen. Hatch as a cosponsor), does not contain the 14-day “deadline,” or any
other deadline, as discussed further below.
MISCONCEPTION: Legislation that would allow
“therapeutic cloning” would not permit the growing of human fetuses for the
harvesting of tissues or organs (“fetus farming”).
REALITY: The original Hatch bill (S. 876)
purported to establish a two-week deadline – i.e., it would violate the law
to allow a human clone to develop past the 14 day point (not counting time
frozen). But that provision was dropped from the most recent version of the
legislation (S. 1520), introduced by Senator Feinstein on July 27, 2005,
with Sen. Hatch as a cosponsor. S. 1520 has most of the same cosponsors as
S. 876, and it is supported by the the Coalition for the Advancement of
Medical Research (CAMR), among others.
Moreover, there are substantial reasons to doubt that the biotechnology
industry would support an effective 14-day deadline in any federal bill that
it thought might become law. The biotech industry has lobbied in state
legislatures – successfully, in some cases – for bills that would allow
human clones to be developed to any point up to birth. At the same time,
biotech researchers are allowing animal clones to develop far beyond the
embryo stage before harvesting their parts, and developing “artificial womb”
technologies will foster such practices, as discussed in the next section.
For several years, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has been
actively pushing state legislation which permits cloned humans to be grown
through any stage of fetal development, even to birth, to obtain tissues for
transplantation, as long as they are not kept alive past the “newborn”
stage.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/cloning/farmfact31805.htm
To cite just one example, BIO lobbied for enactment of the New Jersey law
that bans “cloning of a human being,” defined as “the replication of a human
individual by cultivating a cell with genetic material through the egg,
embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual.” Developing
the cloned embryo to any point short of this to harvest cells and tissues is
allowed. Four members of the President’s Council on Bioethics wrote to New
Jersey Gov. James McGreevey to warn about the radical implications of the
legislation, but BIO prevailed, and the sweeping language became state law.
(See
www.nationalreview.com/document/document020303c.asp).
Another critique of the New Jersey bill, by Prof. Gerard V. Bradley of the
Notre Dame University School of Law, appears here:
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/NJfetusfarmingbillanaylsis.pdf).
Both S. 876 and S. 1520 would prohibit the implantation of such a human
clone in a uterus “or the functional equivalent of a uterus.” However,
neither bill defines “functional equivalent of a uterus.” Concerns about the
vagueness of “functional equivalent of a uterus” were raised in
congressional testimony even prior to the dropping of the “14-day rule.” In
March 2003, Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for
Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified:
If, on the other hand, the phrase “functional equivalent” is to have any
application, one can only guess how effective an artificial environment must
be to qualify as a “functional equivalent” of a uterus. Certainly a Petri
dish itself does not qualify, for then even cloning for research (which
requires developing the cloned embryo to the blastocyst stage in that dish)
would be banned. Perhaps a “functional equivalent” is an environment that
could sustain the cloned embryo to live birth, . . . . In that case, one may
transfer the embryo to any artificial environment that would fall short of
this function to any extent – in other words, at present one may transfer
the embryo to any and all artificial environments. This will be important in
the likely event . . . that the bill’s “14-day rule” for maintaining a
cloned embryo is later changed. (http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=685&wit_id=1821)
Thus, if a researcher has access to an artificial environment (such as a
“biodegradable scaffold,” a “three-dimensional environment,”
or a “whole-embryo culture”) which he believes falls short of full
“functional equivalence” with a uterus, then he can develop those cloned
humans for as long as he sees fit without violating the terms of S. 1520.
The 14-day line was entirely arbitrary to begin with – contrived for
political purposes. In a discussion of the origins of the 14-day line (“The
Organ Factory,” Slate, 7/29/05), Will Saletan wrote that “[t]he British
report, from which others copied the rule, concedes that ‘biologically there
is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond
which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive.’” A 1994 American
Fertility Society report “endorses a 14-day limit only because ‘it seems
prudent at this time.’” Various panels continue to argue for extending the
line to various, later points in fetal development – for example, until “the
neural tube begins to close,” until certain points in the development of the
brain, etc.
MISCONCEPTION: Even when the law allows it,
those who favor cloning for research would never want to allow human clones
to develop past the two-week stage.
REALITY: There is growing evidence that the
biotech industry is laying the groundwork for growing cloned human embryos
into much later stages of development, in order to harvest their parts.
Indeed, researchers have already grown cow clones to four months, and cloned
mice to the newborn stage, before harvesting desired tissues – and
proclaimed these studies as breakthroughs for “therapeutic cloning.” In
should be obvious that biotech firms are not spending money on such research
in order to develop transplant therapies for the benefit of cows or mice.
Researchers have already developed artificial, womb-like environments to
grow animal embryos into fetuses in a laboratory. Dr. Hung-Ching Liu of
Cornell University has grown mouse embryos nearly to term in artificial
wombs. ( “From foetus to full term – without a mother’s touch, Times,
August 30, 2005,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1755908-2,00.html).
In addition, Dr. Liu and her team have been successfully implanting
living human embryos “left over” from in vitro fertility (IVF)
treatments onto an artificial womb wall. “The embryo grows very happily and
very healthy,” Dr. Liu explains. Although she ended the experiment after six
days, she has plans to grow future implanted embryos longer. “Liu told
reporters that, in future experiments, she has every intention of allowing
embryos to develop further and longer.” (“Why Not Artificial Wombs?” by
Christine Rosen, The New Atlantis, Fall 2003,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/3/rosen.htm.)
Some scientists believe it is only a matter of time before they have the
capability to grow a human being to full term in an artificial environment.
(“From foetus to full term – without a mother’s touch, The Times of
London, 8/30/05,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1755908-2,00.html).
While Dr. Liu insists she is simply trying to help women have babies in the
future, “it is also feared that scientists involved in cloning could
continue their experiments without the need for surrogate mothers.” (“From
foetus to full term – without a mother’s touch,” The Times of London,
8/30/05)
As Slate’s William Saletan wrote in “The Organ Factory,” “Artificial
wombs erase the line between in vitro embryos and implanted embryos.
Whole-embryo organ culture erases the line between therapeutic and
reproductive cloning.”
In 2002, researchers reported harvesting tissue from cloned cows at six and
eight weeks of fetal development, and from cloned mice at the newborn stage.
In 2004, researchers reported on harvesting heart tissue from
late-fetal-stage mice (aborted at about the human equivalent of the fifth or
sixth months of pregnancy.) These studies were widely reported by the news
media as breakthroughs for so-called “therapeutic cloning.”
In June, 2005, Dr. Robert Lanza and other researchers at Advanced Cell
Technology (Worcester, MA) published a paper reporting that they created
cloned cow fetuses, grew them in utero to four months (which is equivalent
to four months in a human pregnancy), killed the fetal cows, obtained the
liver tissue cells that they desired, and transplanted them into adult cows.
The authors reported all of this as an advance in “therapeutic cloning”
(which were the first two words in their summary). Although the authors
claimed a degree of success, they observed, “Improvement in engraftment may
be anticipated if the number of stem cells transplanted were to be
increased, either by utilizing older fetuses . . .” (See “Long-Term Bovine
Hematopoietic Engraftment with Clone-Derived Stem Cells,” Cloning and
Stem Cells, June, 2005.)
Additional information on other aspects of the “fetus farming” issue appears
here:
here:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/cloning/farmfact31805.htm.
MISCONCEPTION: Opposition to the cloning of
human embryos is limited to anti-abortion lawmakers, and even some of them
support “therapeutic cloning,” such as Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
REALITY: It is true most members of Congress
who oppose abortion also oppose cloning human embryos in order to kill them
in biomedical research. However, opposition to the cloning of human embryos
extends well beyond the ranks of those who oppose abortion. The first
cosponsor of the Senate bill to ban all human cloning is Senator Mary
Landrieu (D-La.), a pro-abortion senator. During the February 27, 2003
debate in the House of Representatives, pro-life lawmakers who supported the
Weldon-Stupak bill were joined by a substantial group of lawmakers who
oppose restrictions on abortion, but who see human cloning as a distinct
issue.
Among them was Rep. Bernard Sanders, a self-described socialist who
represents Vermont. Sanders gave a speech in favor of the ban, saying,
“While I
support stem cell research, the cloning of a human being for any purpose
raises the deepest and most profound ethical and moral questions: questions
about the sanctity or the uniqueness of each human person; questions about
the evil of eugenics and genetic engineering in humans; and, equally
important, questions about the ownership and use of cloned humans by an
unregulated corporate biotechnology industry motivated almost exclusively by
their quest for venture capital, short-term profits, and higher stock
prices.” (Congressional Record, February 27, 2003, p. 1414)
Rep. David Wu (D-Or.), who described himself as “strongly
pro-choice,” spoke for the ban, saying it was necessary “that we take some
time to let our ethics catch up with our technology. Our technology has
gotten to the point where we are talking about genetic mixes, mixing of
human and animal cells and other procedures which I think the public has a
reasonable, profound discomfort with.” (Congressional Record,
February 27, 2003, p. 1427)
A ban on all forms of human cloning is also supported by many organizations
and individuals who do not share the “pro-life” perspective regarding human
embryos. For examples, see “Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument Against
Research Cloning,” by Charles Krauthammer (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020429&s=krauthammer042902),
“Diverse Array of People Support Total Ban on Human Cloning” (http://www.cloninginformation.org/info/diversequotes-01-11-30.htm),
and “Six Reasons Why Progressives Should Not Support . . . Human Cloning” (http://www.cloninginformation.org/info/icta-why_oppose_harkin-spector.htm).
MISCONCEPTION: Those who oppose the creation
of human embryos by cloning are against any form of stem cell research.
REALITY: There is a great deal of ongoing
stem cell research which is entirely laudable and is supported by virtually
everyone. Research using stem cells taken from adult tissues, placenta, and
umbilical cords are ethically non-controversial because they do not require
the killing of human embryos. These types of stem cells have already been
used in human clinical studies for dozens of conditions, and many of these
studies have yielded promising therapeutic results – far beyond anything yet
demonstrated with embryonic stem cells. For more information on this
subject: www.stemcellresearch.org.
Rather than focusing resources on such promising and non-controversial
research, however, some groups and their allies in Congress insist that
cloning is necessary to bring about regenerative therapies. Yet, some
leading researchers have expressed considerable skepticism about the
sweeping claims currently being made for the therapeutic potential of human
cloning.
MISCONCEPTION: Those who oppose the creation
of human embryos by cloning are anti-science, and they are callous
ideologues who apparently care little about the suffering of those afflicted
with serious diseases.
REALITY: Some leading supporters of cloning
for research have relied heavily on harsh polemic against those who oppose a
clone-and-kill policy. Congressman Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) said during the
House floor debate on the Weldon-Stupak bill: “We are either going to decide
to go with the people who understand this stuff and the people who have
compassion in their hearts for these people with these diseases, or we are
going to fall prey to this Luddite anti-scientific and demagogical
approach.” (Congressional Record, February 27, 2003, page H-1429.)
During the same debate, Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-Tx.) said, “At a time
when we are alarmed daily by the possibility of biological attacks from
afar, this bill represents a very real and present biological attack on the
victims of these tragic diseases, diseases that strike Americans down in a
nonpartisan manner.” (H-1399)
Ad hominem attacks such as these are intended to deflect public
attention from the ethical barrier that cloning for research would breach.
Cloning for research would involve the deliberate creation of individual
members of the species Homo sapiens with the intent of exploiting
them for ends that will kill them. Since polls show that the great majority
of Americans agree with President Bush that this is unethical2
(see the material on public opinion polls above), some advocates for
research cloning prefer to create a caricature of the organized anti-cloning
forces to distract the public from what the argument is really about.
Opposition to the cloning of human embryos is diverse. It includes groups
and members of Congress who are strongly committed on both sides of the
abortion issue. Many of these groups and lawmakers have strong records in
support of ethical biomedical research.
Moreover, many of those who are speaking out against human cloning –
including members of Congress – are afflicted with degenerative diseases, or
have family members so afflicted, apparently to no lesser extent than
supporters of cloning for research. Those who oppose human cloning hope for
cures no less than those who support cloning for research. Even as a crude
rhetorical tactic, it is false and offensive to suggest otherwise.
MISCONCEPTION: The biotechnology industry
wants to create human embryos by cloning only to study their stem cells.
REALITY: Some biotechnology firms want to
patent cloned human embryos and sell them at great profit for use as
“medical models.” Congressman Dave Weldon (R-Fl.), the prime sponsor of the
Weldon-Stupak bill, said on the House floor on February 27, 2003, “They want
to create human models of disease. Research scientists today in America, if
they want to do research on Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, they buy
mice and they buy rats that have been engineered to manifest that disease.
[Now] they want to create human beings that are engineered to manifest these
diseases. Now, can we imagine that? They want to have shelves . . . filled
with human embryos, and sell them for a profit to research labs.” (Congressional
Record, February 27, 2003, p. 1413)
For further discussion of the patenting and “medical models” agenda, see
“The New Patent Puzzle,” by Neil Munro, National Journal, March 2,
2002, and “Stem Cells Touted for Drug Research,” by Neil Munro, National
Journal, April 2, 2005.
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/patentpuzzle030202.html
http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/EmbryosDrugResearchNJ.pdf
MISCONCEPTION: The Hatch-Feinstein-Bono
legislation would authorize only research on “surplus” human embryos who
would otherwise be discarded.
REALITY: In 2001, President Bush announced
that he would not permit federal funding of stem cell research that required
killing human embryos. Many supporters of such funding among members of
Congress, editorial writers, and elsewhere, insisted that such research was
justifiable because it would use only embryos created by in vitro
fertilization who were “going to be discarded anyway.” Many of these
advocates went to great lengths to insist that they would never propose or
support creating human embryos for the purpose of using them in biomedical
research. Some (i.e., Congressman Dick Gephardt3
and Senator Tom Daschle4)
insisted that the question of cloning must be kept entirely separate from
the issue of embryonic stem cell research.
In most cases, those assurances were written on water. Within mere months,
in some cases, the same lawmakers and editorial writers were opposing bills
to ban the cloning of human embryos, arguing that “therapeutic cloning” –
that is, the creation of human embryos for the purpose of using them in
biomedical research – was necessary to advance “stem cell research.” For
examples of some such rapid flip-flops, see “Cloning debate is not another
monkey trial,” by Charles Krauthammer, M.D. (http://www.nrlc.org/killing_embryos/Krauthammer051002.html).
However, some vocal advocates of “therapeutic cloning” sometimes forget
which argument they are supposed to make on a given day, and they slip back
into the old party line at the oddest moments. For example, at a February 5,
2003 press conference to announce introduction of the Hatch bill, Senator
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the Senate’s most vigorous supporters of
cloning for research, told reporters that the bill would allow research only
on surplus embryos that had been created for another purpose and were going
to be discarded anyway.
Likewise, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Co.), speaking on the House floor
in favor of the Greenwood-Deutsch Substitute (of which she was an original
cosponsor) on February 27, 2003, said in reference to the Substitute: “We
are not, and we do not, support creating embryos for the purpose of this
research. Instead what happens is researchers use existing embryos from
reproductive clinics, which are going to be disposed of anyway. And there is
no way this research will be used to clone a human being, period.” [Congressional
Record, February 27, 2003, page H-1426)
Conclusion
The public deserves an honest debate on whether to allow
human embryos to be manufactured by cloning and used as a commodity. The
public also deserves an honest debate on the implications for future
generations of allowing individual members of the species Homo sapiens
to be created and used as an end. In sum, the public deserves better than
the polemic and doubletalk they have been getting from many advocates of
human cloning.
1. Some
polemicists, such as syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman (“Outlawing
Science,” Washington Post, March 8, 2003), have asserted that under
the House-passed bill’s prohibition against importing “any product derived
from” cloned human embryos, a person who went to another country and
received a transplant of cells taken from a cloned human embryo could be
arrested on return to the United States. This is a particularly silly
argument. Such a person would not be “importing” products of cloned human
embryos, any more than a person who returns to the U.S. after eating a
hamburger in London would be “importing” British beef possibly tainted by
“mad cow” virus, or a person who returns after eating a tuna sandwich in
China would be “importing” tunas caught in non-dolphin-safe nets. The other
provisions of the Weldon-Stupak bill clearly do not apply to activities
conducted outside the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States.
2. In a
speech on human cloning on April 10, 2002, President Bush said, “Research
cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics,
that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of
another.” (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/print/20020410-4.html)
3.
Although then-Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) voted against the
Weldon-Stupak bill during its initial consideration on July 31, 2001, he
appeared to endorse it less than three weeks later in an appearance on NBC’s
Meet the Press. Gephardt said, “Obviously, we don't want cloning. Nobody is
for cloning.” A minute later, Gephardt said, “We passed a law saying no
cloning and I think that’s the law that we ought to follow.” There was no
bill passed restricting cloning except the Weldon-Stupak bill. (Gephardt was
absent when the House again considered the bill on February 27, 2003.)
4.
On July 31, 2001, the day after the House initially passed the Weldon-Stupak
ban, Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) told reporters, “I am opposed to the effort
to clone under virtually any circumstances that I can think of. I think
human cloning is totally different and should be separated from the issue of
aggressive embryonic stem cell research. I do think that there are limits to
what we can do morally with embryonic stem cell research, and this is a good
illustration.” On August 1, 2001, a reporter asked him to clarify whether he
meant to include all human cloning. Daschle replied, “I’m very uncomfortable
with even cloning for research.” He added, “I don’t care whether you’re a
proponent or an opponent, I think you need to draw a pretty sharp line here
between cloning and embryonic stem cell research.”
To go to the main National Right to Life index
on human cloning, click here. |
